Table of contents

The Docks

The Import Dock

The Import Dock was the most important element in
the East India Dock system, providing room to unload
the East Indiamen returning from their voyages. It was
built on the land purchased by the company before
October 1803, which lay to the north of the road that
led to Orchard House and which covered almost 60
acres. (fn. 3) It was the availability of the land which allowed
the dock scheme to proceed.

Excavations began in September 1803, using pumps,
buckets, rods, pipes and clacks (valves) manufactured by
Outram & Company of Butterley, Derbyshire. Rennie
stated that the company had 'patterns for those used in
the London Dock'. (fn. 4) It was not until November that the
final dimensions of the Import Dock were settled at
1,410ft by 560ft, impounding 18 acres of water to a
uniform depth of 22ft. (fn. 5) The specifications for the earthworks for the site required dredging to a depth of 26ft,
anticipating that 625,000 cubic yards of earth would be
excavated (excluding the brickearth), which was to be
deposited around the dock. (fn. 6) Behind the walls the earth
was to be puddled to ensure strength and water-proofing.

In September 1803 the contract for excavating the
dock was awarded to Hugh McIntosh, who agreed to
complete the work within 20 months. (fn. 1) It has been calculated that McIntosh actually excavated a total volume
of 857,000 cubic yards at a charge of 9 ¼d per cubic yard.
With his large labour force of up to 400 men and 100
horses, he set an average rate of 8,000 cubic yards a week
in the summers of 1804 and 1805, and a weekly average
of 6,000 cubic yards during 1805. (fn. 8) The contractors
installed a Boulton & Watt steam engine, which came
into operation in October 1804. It was housed in a newly
constructed engine shed designed by Walker and built
by James & William Green of Mile End. (fn. 9) The cost of
the engine was £1,550, and the total for the engine,
machinery and building was £13,556. (fn. 10)

The excavated topsoil or brickearth was used to make
the bricks that formed the Import Dock walls. In November 1803 a contract was signed with Joseph Trimmer
of Brentford to produce nine million bricks. (fn. 11) The brickwork of the retaining walls was laid by Philip Richards
and Thomas Crawford, who also built the lock and basin
wall. (fn. 12) Fifty tons of old iron hoops were used to strengthen
the Import Dock walls, a technique already used in the
West India Docks (see page 268). Over 40 tons of these
were purchased from the Victualling Board at £14 per
ton. (fn. 13) Also as in the West India Docks, the walls of the
Import Dock were constructed with a curved or 'banana'
profile, ideally suited to the shape of the hulls of the East
Indiamen (Plate 65b). (fn. 14)

Other materials needed for the construction of the
dock — including limestone, sand, pozzuolana, (fn. 2) timber,
bricks (not all were manufactured on-site by Trimmers)
and building stone (mostly Dundee stone) — were brought
by barge to a wooden wharf on the Lea, close to Orchard
House. Over 800 tons of pozzuolana were purchased for
the mixing of hydraulic cement mortar. (fn. 15)

In February 1805 Philip Richards and Thomas Crawford started building the Import Dock walls. The walls
were similar in design to those in the West India Docks
and London Docks, but here the foundations rested on
clay, not gravel. (fn. 16) Almost 70ft of the south wall of the
Import Dock failed during construction in June 1805. (fn. 17)
The Engineers reported that the failure was caused by 'a
stratum of loamy sand . . . found at a small depth under
the Foundation for about one third of the length, which
being carried from under it, by water from behind
occasion'd the failure, and with it a part of the wall on
each side was dragged from the foundation'. They added
that they felt this was an isolated case, but just three
months later they had to report a similar collapse in the
east wall of the dock. (fn. 18)

The dock was finished by 1806. (fn. 19) The total cost was
almost £80,000, of which £28,417 was paid for 'the
excavation and puddling of the Great Dock' and £50,258
for the walls, quays and materials. (fn. 20)

During the 1850s the rapid increase in the export trade
led to a shortage of berths in the East India Docks. One
of the short-term solutions was the construction of four
fixed wooden jetties on the north side of the Import
Dock to allow more ships to dock. In 1860 an additional
two jetties were constructed and by 1881 there were eight
jetties (fig. 219). (fn. 21)

In July 1879 almost all of the south quay of the Import
Dock collapsed due to the disturbance of a vein of
quicksand on which the walls stood. (fn. 22) Prior to the accident, accommodation on the quay was proving unsuitable
for the rapid discharge of the largest vessels, and the
opportunity which the collapse provided was used to
reconstruct the wall, to increase quay space and to erect
two-storey quay sheds to allow unloading to take place
under cover. At the same time all fixed hydraulic cranes
were converted to travelling ones for greater flexibility:
this was a notably early use of travelling quay cranes. (fn. 23)

The new quay wall was constructed with close timberpiling, strongly secured by land ties at the rear of the old
wall, the dock bottom behind the timber piling being
dredged down to the London clay, and a massive concrete
wall was built. The false quay cost £53,714 and was
completed in 1881. (fn. 24)

In 1895–7 a false quay was created at the north quay,
using wooden sheet piling, in conjunction with the cutting
of the new entrance passage (see below). (fn. 25) The north
quay piled wharf was 16ft wide and was made up of a
front row of 12in.-square vertical piles, a row of inclined
piles supporting the earth at the top of the slope by
means of horizontal timber sheeting, and a back row of
short vertical piles. The whole system of timber work
was supported on transverse steel joists, which carried
longitudinal steel joists and buckled plates filled in with
concrete, which formed the deck of the wharf. (fn. 26) The
work cost £3,600. (fn. 27)

As part of the redevelopment of the docks in 1912–
16, the entrance passage was widened to 80ft, the lock
was extended from 209ft to 300ft, the north and east
quays were widened by 20ft, and the depth of water was
increased by 2ft to 28ft. The contract was awarded to
Herbert Mason Nowell of Stockton-on-Tees on his tender
of £200,394, and included the fitting of new dock gates,
a swing-bridge and pumping machinery. (fn. 28) The gates and
bridge were ordered from a German firm in May 1913,
but the contract was cancelled following the outbreak of
war. (fn. 29) Sir William Arrol & Company supplied the operating machinery, on their tender of £4,950. (fn. 30) The widening
of the Import Dock passage was finished in August
1915, but wartime conditions delayed the supply of the
equipment, and the work was not completed until 1916. (fn. 31)

During the Second World War the Import Dock played
an important role in the construction of the Mulberry
floating harbours for the D-Day landings in Normandy
in 1944. The 'Phoenix' units that formed the breakwaters
had to be constructed in high-quality concrete at various
locations around the country, before being floated into
the West India Dock for making into two harbours —
'Mulberry A' for the Americans, and 'Mulberry B' for
the British. In late 1943 the East India Import Dock was
dammed, pumped out and converted into a dry dock
where 10 'A' units or caissons (the largest of which
weighed 6,044 tons) were built, under the supervision of
Sir Robert McAlpine. (fn. 32)

After the Second World War the Import Dock was
partly filled and the western end used as a container
stacking yard. In 1949 it was decided that it was no
longer necessary to maintain the depth of water in the
dock at 28ft and that, because no vessel using the docks
had a draught of more than 19ft, a depth of 24ft would
be sufficient. (fn. 33) In 1969 Willment Brothers of Isleworth
were paid £81,375 for filling part of the dock. (fn. 34) Water
remained in the eastern end of the Import Dock until
the 1970s, but it was filled in 1987–8 and a number of
new developments, including the Financial Times Print
Works (1987–8) and Telehouse Europe (1988–90), were
built on the site (see pages 716, 723).

The Entrance Basin and Lock

The original plan of March 1803 had envisaged transforming the eastern half of Brunswick Dock into an
entrance basin (fig. 216). But as part of their major
alterations of the dock scheme of early 1804, Rennie and
Walker decided to excavate a totally new entrance basin
of three acres to the east of the Export Dock. (fn. 35) In July
1804, when explaining the reasons for making a separate
entrance basin, Walker stated that it was seen to be a
good thing that the basin would be for transit only,
without 'interference with the important Business of
loading or discharging the vessels'. (fn. 36)

Hugh McIntosh was awarded the contract to excavate
the basin and the two communication lock pits, beginning
work in March 1804. Payments for the excavation work
of the basin amounted to £4,128. (fn. 37) Other large payments
in the construction of the basin included £9,703 for the
wharfing, while another went to Richards and Crawford,
the contractors for the brickwork and stonework. (fn. 38)

From the basin there were two locks: the Entrance
Lock from the Thames, and a second leading from the
basin into the Import Dock, known as the Communication
Lock. In January 1804 Rennie and Walker proposed that
the locks should be larger than first designed, so that
'even a 74 gun ship may enter these Docks'. (fn. 39) The lock
was 48ft wide and the largest East Indiamen, of up to
1,500 tons, could enter the docks, so long as their stores
had been removed.

A section of the chamber of the Entrance Lock is
shown in a drawing by Ralph Walker (Plate 149b). With
a width of 48ft. it was the largest lock in the Port of
London. It had a curved or rounded bottom, unlike the
shallow inverts of the locks constructed at the West India
Docks. In this, as in other aspects of the engineering,
Rennie and Walker cannot be accused of simply copying
William Jessop's work there when designing important
elements of the new dock system; they improved basic
designs and made innovative new ones. Indeed, Rennie
had engineered the London Docks and had advised in
the construction of the West India Docks. The total cost
of the Communication Lock was £29,322. and the larger
Entrance Lock cost £38,600. (fn. 40)

As trade increased after the opening of the dock, the
basin began to get crowded, and in February 1815 the
company decided to enlarge it. (fn. 41) Some extra land was
needed and this required the purchase of the entire
Pemell estate, which was bought from Peter Pemell for
£5,500 (see page 648). (fn. 42) The total cost of the work
was £18,191; the largest payment was £6,426 for the
excavation work carried out by William Bough of Limehouse between the spring of 1815 and November 1816. (fn. 43)
With this enlargement, the area of the basin was almost
doubled (fig. 218). In the original basin there were earthen
banks on the eastern side, but it was now decided to
make wooden wharves there. (fn. 44)

The first iron swing-bridge at the East India Docks
was erected over the link between the basin and the
Export Dock. It was cast in 1815 to the designs of Ralph
Walker by the Horseley Iron Company of Tipton in
Staffordshire and erected by Hunter & English in 1816. (fn. 45)
A drawing of 1824 shows the bridge, but inaccurately
depicts it as a fixed one (Plate 64b).

In 1838 J. S. Adams, Engineer to the East and West
India Dock Company, proposed to enlarge the Entrance
Lock in order to admit the biggest steam vessels, which
had enormous paddles. His scheme was to build an
entirely new lock. (fn. 46) In 1839 (Sir) John Rennie and James
Walker were asked to comment on the new scheme,
which by that date was for a lock that was to be 300ft
long, 75ft wide and to be 11ft below the low water level
of the spring tide. They concluded that they did not feel
the design was large enough to meet likely future increases
in the size of steamships. (fn. 47) The dock company finally
decided not to proceed with the scheme for a new
entrance, preferring instead to rely on Brunswick Wharf
for the accommodation of steamships (see page 593).

In 1874 the East and West India Dock Company
proposed a new eastern river entrance lock to the Dock
Basin to allow large vessels into the dock which they had
'at times been obliged to refuse'. (fn. 48) A scheme was prepared
by Augustus Manning, Superintending Engineer of the
East and West India Dock Company, that involved the
enlargement, quarrying and deepening of the basin,
together with the erection of shed-warehouses. The estimated cost was £204,000. (fn. 49) In April 1875 Manning's plan
for the extension of the basin and the new river entrance
was approved. The consulting engineer was Colonel
Charles Pasley, RE (1824–90), Director of Engineering
and Architectural Works at the Admiralty, who had
worked at the Chatham dockyard. (fn. 50) In July 1875
Merritt & Ashby were awarded the contract to undertake
the construction of the new entrance and the improvements to the basin, and the work on the extension of the
basin began in November. (fn. 51)

Work progressed well and by September 1876 the first
coping stone on the new quay of the basin had been laid.
It was hoped that the work would be finished by early
1878, but water was not admitted to the basin until July
1879. (fn. 52) It was opened on 2 August with the admission of
the Cuzco, one of the Orient Steam Navigation Company's largest steamers. (fn. 53) The dock wall was of Portlandcement concrete, faced with stock brickwork 3ft thick.
The total thickness of the wall was 20ft at the bottom
and 8ft at the top. The new lock was 65ft wide, was
fitted with two pairs of wrought-iron double-skinned
gates and had a depth of 31ft of water, 4ft deeper than
any other on the Thames. (fn. 54) The works cost a total of
£240,000. Extensive warehouses were erected on the
north and east quays of the basin (see page 589).

In 1897 a new cut, 60ft wide, was made between the
Export Dock and the Entrance Basin, to the south of the
existing passage (Plate 65a). It was constructed by
H. B. & F. A. James, who had carried out work at
Grimsby docks. The new lock gates were supplied by
the Thames Iron Works Company and the gate machinery
by Sir W. G. Armstrong Whitworth & Company. The
cost was £25,525. (fn. 55)

In 1994 the Entrance Basin survives as the only area
of enclosed water left in the East India Docks. The
original entrance lock has been filled in and the surviving
entrance lock is that constructed in 1897.

The Export Dock

In September 1804 Hugh McIntosh contracted to use
the East India Dock Company's horse-operated bucket
dredger (previously employed in the construction of the
Brunswick Dock). He then began excavating 8,000 tons
of mud from Brunswick Dock, which was to become the
East India Export Dock. The cost of deepening the dock
to a uniform water depth of 22ft was £11,328, most of
which was paid to McIntosh for excavation work. The
south wall was rebuilt in brick, at a cost of £9,782, but
the original timber walls of the Brunswick Dock were
sound enough to be retained on the other three sides of
the Export Dock. (fn. 56)

During 1862–3 the old mast-house, a familiar Blackwall
landmark since 1789, was removed from the west quay
of the Export Dock. (fn. 57) By the early 1860s the building
was obsolete and the machinery was incapable of lifting
the enormous masts of modern vessels. Its duties were
by then performed by a floating derrick. (fn. 58) It had,
however, served a useful purpose of quite another kind
when the Ordnance Survey had used it as a triangulation
station for its survey of London, undertaken in 1848–
50. (fn. 59) Two projecting timber jetties were hastily erected
on the west quay of the Export Dock to provide additional
berthing space. (fn. 60)

In 1895–7 several new works were undertaken at the
Export Dock, the most important of which was the
construction of the new cut between it and the basin. A
few years earlier, in 1893, the company's Dockmaster
had suggested that an entirely new passage, 65ft wide,
be made to 'prevent the falling off in tonnage which had
occurred due to the inability to accommodate vessels
which would otherwise have used the docks'. (fn. 61) The new
cut permitted the depth of the Export Dock to be
increased to 28ft. (fn. 62)

In 1897 a contract worth £7,000 was awarded to W.
Whitford & Company for reinstating the north quay of
the Export Dock. (fn. 63) The work involved the strengthening
of the quay, adapting it as a discharging berth, and the
installation of cranes. These works, and the new cut,
were done partly to satisfy Donald Currie & Company's
requirements, they undertaking to pay compensation if
they left within five years. (fn. 64) Their berths in the Entrance
Basin were to be used just for loading. (fn. 65) The Export
Dock was also the home of the emigrants' ships. In the
nineteenth century, Green's, Wigram's and Dunbar's all
used the docks as their embarkation point. (fn. 66)

By 1905 the Export Dock was principally used by
sailing ships of the Aberdeen Line and Shaw, Savill &
Company, and steamers of a number of companies. The
Union Castle Line trading to the Cape made the docks
its headquarters. (fn. 67)

In 1923 a proposal was made for the repair of the
north quay and the erection of a 'large, modern' transit
shed, at a total estimated cost of £90,188, but the scheme
was deferred. (fn. 68)

After suffering from bomb damage during the Second
World War, the Export Dock was sold in 1946 (fn. 69) and
filled in during 1949–50 to make the site for the Brunswick Wharf Power Station (see page 598).

Footnotes

1. Hugh McIntosh (1768–1840) was married in Staffordshire in 1798 and his only son, David, was born in 1799. Hugh's
involvement in Poplar was not only as principal contractor for excavations at the East India Docks, for from 1813 he acquired about
80 acres of marshland north of the East India Docks and became a speculative builder (see page 149).

2. Pozzuolana was a volcanic ash containing silica and alumina, which when mixed with lime and sand, produced a strong hydraulic
cement suitable for use in the dock walls.